In light of the recent controversy in which Ron Paul had the gall to suggest that September 11th originated from years of mistrust and animosity towards the Western world and America in particular with regards to involvement in the Middle East, we wanted to provide a succinct list of perceived grievances towards America. Stated by Radley Balko in Fox News (of all places):

The “blowback” theory isn’t some fringe idea common only to crazy Sept. 11 conspiracy theorists. It doesn’t suggest that we “deserved” the Sept. 11 attacks, nor does it suggest we shouldn’t have retaliated against the people who waged them….
What it does say is that actions have consequences. When the Arab and Muslim world continually sees U.S. troops marching through Arab and Muslim backyards, U.S. trade sanctions causing Arab and Muslim suffering and U.S. bombs landing on Arab and Muslim homes, it isn’t difficult to see how Arabs could begin to develop a deep contempt for the U.S.

In this post, I’ll try to provide a concise summary of grievances that resonate with the Middle Eastern public that facilitates a hostility towards America and fuel the extremism that led to 9/11, the Madrid bombings, and the July 7th attacks in London:

1. Perpetuation of Israeli / Palestinian Conflict

Since the creation of Israel in 1948, the Palestinian conflict has become a symbol of Western imperialism forced upon Arabs. Over 89 billion dollars in foreign aid, much in the way of defense grants, has been given to the Israeli’s to create a first world country with the strongest military in the world. In comparison, the Palestinians have lived under an economically crooked and politically backwards country further stratified and isolated by the Israeli occupation that has existed since 1967. The everyday realities of the world’s longest military occupation combined with Israeli settlements condemned repeatedly by the United Nations yet ignored by the United States solidifies many beliefs that the US, as the primary backer of Israel, is guilty of facilitating their crimes. In the Baker-Hamilton report, US-led peace efforts in Palestine-Israel was listed as the crucible of restoring the American image in the Middle East.

2. The Support of Undemocratic / Illegitimate Governments

While the Bush administration has superficially promoted democracy as a panacea to the Middle East, America has continued to strengthen ties with the regions most undemocratic countries. The most notorious and despised of these may be the Egyptian government headed by Hosni Mubarak — an autocratic system that relies on an intelligence agency known for medieval torturing of government opposition. Since 1979, over $50 billion has been given to Egypt, including an average of over 1 billion dollars a year in military aid. The US’ involvement in the overthrow of the Prime Minister of Iran in the 1950s is also a key event in understanding Middle Eastern resentment of America. America’s support of Saudi Arabia, Bin Laden’s home country, has led him to state “our country has become an American colony.” In this context, he likens himself to the French resistance fighting against the Germans. It’s strange to think that when he was fighting Soviet colonization of Afghanistan, America saw it that way too.

3. 1990-2003 Sanctions Against Iraq

United Nations sanctions against Iraq were imposed by the United Nations in 1990 following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, and continued until the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. They were perhaps the toughest, most comprehensive sanctions in history, and have caused much controversy over the humanitarian impact, culminating with two senior UN representatives in Iraq resigning in protest of the sanctions. In as much as the economic sanctions were designed to topple Saddam they were a failure, however the sanctions caused the death of between 400,000 and 800,000 Iraqi children. The reasons include lack of medical supplies, malnutrition, and especially disease owing to lack of clean water. Among other things, chlorine, needed for disinfecting water supplies, was banned as having a “dual use” in potential weapons manufacture. On May 10, 1996, appearing on 60 Minutes, Madeleine Albright, then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, was presented with a figure of half a million children under five having died from the sanctions. Not challenging this figure, she infamously replied “we think the price is worth it”. The sanctions regime was finally ended on May 22, 2003 (with certain arms-related exceptions) by paragraph 10 of UNSC, after approximately 1.5 million people had died. Osama bin Laden stated that one of the three reasons the World Trade Center was attacked was the U.S. sanctions against Iraq.

4. Presence of American Troops in the Middle East

United States troops have been stationed in Saudi Arabia since the First Gulf War and have become a potent symbol of Washington’s role in the region, and many Saudis see them as proof of the country’s subservience to America. Saudi Arabia is home to some of Islam’s holiest sites and the deployment of US forces there was seen as a historic betrayal by many Islamists, notably Osama Bin Laden. It is one of the main reasons given by the Saudi-born dissident to justify violence against the United States and its allies.

5. Diplomacy of Convenience

The Cold War created an atmosphere of a zero-sum diplomatic game in the world and the Middle East provided for a fertile battleground for this extensively intrusive style of diplomacy. In the 1980’s, America provided arms and financial assistance to the Mujahdeen’s (including Osama Bin Laden and future founders of the Taliban) to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. With the Iraqi-Iranian war raging, America provided Saddam Hussein with conventional and chemical weapons, while at the same time supplying Iran in the Iran-Contra Affair. The chemical weapons would eventually be used by Saddam on the Iranians and on his own population during civil unrest from the Kurds. The painfully accurate quip during apprehensions to the 2003 invasion of Iraq was “We know Iraq has weapons of mass destruction; we still have the receipt”.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, then ambassador to France, and John Adams, then ambassador to Britain, met in London with Tripoli’s ambassador, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja. Jefferson and Adams asked by what right the Barbary States preyed upon American shipping, enslaving crews and passengers.

Adja replied that the actions of the Islamic nations were “… founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini
ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION OF PACIFISTS (1942)

Islam’s jihad is a struggle against idolatry, sexual deviation, plunder, repression and cruelty. The war waged by [non-Islamic] conquerors, however, aims at promoting lust and animal pleasures. They care not if whole countries are wiped out and many families left homeless. But those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under [God’s Law] . . . .

Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back untill they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non Muslims] overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender to [the enemy]? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists that to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to paradise, which can be opened only for holy warriors!

There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and hadiths [sayings of the prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.

Quoted in Bostom, ” The Legacy of Jihad and the Fate of the Non-Muslims” Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY 2005

Note: This statement was made before the US invaded Iraq for the second time, or the first time. It was made before the US, at the request of the government of Saudi Arabia stationed US troops in Saudi Arabia to defend it against Saddam Hussein and the Muslim Brotherhood. It was made before the ouster of Mohammed Mossadegh as Prime Minister of Iran in 1953. It was made before the Declaration of the State of Israel of its independence in 1948. Therefore, one must ask, what is it that the US did, which was responsible for Khomeini’s statement? Fight against the Barbary Pirates?

What about now? As Gary Sick has said: “Ahamdinejad sees himself as emulating his great mentor Khomeini.”

The notion that we are responsible for 9/11 is the silly notion of the Blame America First crowd on the left of the political spectrum. The Muslim quest for world domination was interrupteed in 1638 following the battle for Vienna. It has now resumed, supported by petrodollars, See Dore Gold, Hatred’s Kingdom.

Of course, Ahamdinejad wasn’t responsible for 9/11 either. Do you know any Muslims? I do, and they have never tried to enslave me, so your premise that all Muslims are like Ayatollah Khomeini/Ahamdinejad is obviously false.

The question posed was not “Who is responsible?” Except for the 9/11 conspiracy folks, most people agree that “Bin Laden” is the answer to that question. The question posed here is “Why did Bin Laden attack and how was he able to garner so much support?” Guiliani and his ilk say that it is because they hate our freedoms, even though I have never seen any evidence to support that view. Ron Paul said that it was blowback for our Middle Eastern policies, and there is a lot of evidence to support that, including words from the Bin Laden’s mouth himself.

There are passages in the Bible that support slavery and incest, yet not all Christians support slavery and incest. The troubles in Kosovo show that Christians can be just as good at terrorizing Muslims as the reverse.

I think it’s also significant that Mr. Guiliani was also unfamiliar with the term “blowback”, which is a common term used in CIA writings, it is often referenced within the 9/11 Commission Report.

It’s of poor taste for Rudy Guiliani to be running for the White House not only on foreign affairs, but as being mayor during 9/11, and be so unfamiliar with the lingo and views of the CIA. It belies a greater problem with Mr. Giliani’s ability to stay educated on a central issue to him; terrorism.

One can debate the finer points of what the global conflict is, and what it means, but Rudy Guiliani doesn’t even understand the terminology being thrown around.

Good post. Thanks for the link.
I think it’s important to distinguish between Iraq (ie: Saddam Hussein) being responsible for 9/11 (as Cheney repeatedly stated, and as I hear Guiliani stating now) and our actions in and against Iraq being part of the fuel for Bin Laden’s fire (as it clearly was).

I try hard to be a Republican. It is not easy. How is it possible for the smart people in our government to so clearly miss the balance of Sunni and Shia, etc. And how can you be excited about Newt….he does not represent me. I can’t be a Democrat. As much as I admired Sam Nunn, I don’t thnink much of Hillary or Nancy or their friends. ron Paul is correct in that the people need to get a party to represent their interest. Taht is not the case at present. I will absolutely vote for Ron Paul for president, even if I have to write him in.

A write in campaign would seem necessary, he will never get close to the nomination, no matter how much sense he makes. Nobody’s interested in a candidate who is willing to say their own country and their own actions are at least partially culpable for the mess we’re in.